If sample size matters here, it's also relevant to the slightly more than half a season of good play he put together in the regular season, when compared to the rest of his career (two full seasons).
But the alternative (two seasons) is also much bigger than the alternative to his disaster of a postseason (half of one season).
10 games in the Playoffs out of...95 games like you said? 10% sample size Or 95 games out of 324 30% sample size I think his half season of play is what he truly is as a player. However, I think him hitting .340 in 14 postseason games in 2005 compared to what he is doing now in 7 games is a lot better sample size, why aren't you referring to that?
The point is that whether 10 or 30, both are in the minority and neither is an indicative sample size. Misleading. He was benched when he was playing poorly (NLCS), so he didn't get the at-bats to bring that average down.
Willy just came back from a long layoff due to injury, it takes time before he can get his timing back, the 8 day layoff makes it much worse. Willy's slump is not an isolated incident, everybody else on the Rockies(besides Holliday) have been slumping since the NLCS. Facing Beckett and Schilling can prolong that.
Schilling allowed a .275 BAA in both the regular season and postseason, as well as a .750 OPS in the season. That's fairly average. Also, it's not just the Red Sox... he struggled just as much against the mediocre Arizona pitchers. That said, yes I acknowledge that it's a small sample size. But so is the half-a-season he put together in the regular season in the context of his baseball career.
Didn't stop the Rockies from playing him right away... everybody said "that's a sign of how valuable they feel he is..." Now, the layoff starts affecting him enough so that they take him out? All it proves is that the Rockies have a deep enough roster to be able to replace Taveras, as well as have somebody replace him at leadoff, and not be worse off both offensively and defensively.
